JUDGMENT : K.M. THAKER, J. 1. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief: 10(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, being illegal, perverse and without application of mind and be pleased to direct the respondent to release the amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has, accordingly brought under challenge the order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the appellate authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The order passed by the first authority i.e. the controlling authority dated 21.09.2011 constituted under the said Act is also in question in present petition. 2. The order dated 21.9.2011 passed by the controlling authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 26.12.2011 passed in Gratuity Appeal No. 113 of 2011. 3. Accordingly two concurrent orders passed by the authorities constituted under the Act are brought under challenge. 4. It emerges from the impugned orders that the authorities did not entertain the application filed by present applicant under the provisions of the Act, on the ground that the application ought to have been filed at Veraval and the territorial jurisdiction would lie with the authority at Junagadh and the application could not have been filed at Ahmedabad and could not be decided by the authority at Ahmedabad. On such ground and for such reason authorities did not entertain the application. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders. 6. So far as relevant facts are concerned, it emerges from the record that the petitioner claimed in his application before the authority, (at Ahmedabad) that his date of joining in service of the employer (present petitioner) was 12.2.1972 and that he retired (on superannuation) from service w.e.f. 28.2.2001 and that the total length of his service in terms of years of service was 39 years and his last drawn salary was Rs. 23,180. 7. It is pertinent that in his application (Form-N) also the workman declared that his last posting was at Veraval where he worked on the post of and as an Inspector. He had also mentioned that his permanent residence was at Veraval. 23,180. 7. It is pertinent that in his application (Form-N) also the workman declared that his last posting was at Veraval where he worked on the post of and as an Inspector. He had also mentioned that his permanent residence was at Veraval. The same details were mentioned in Form-I as well. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed at Ahmedabad and that therefore, he filed the application seeking payment of gratuity, at Ahmedabad. He further contended that according to the provisions contained under Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has to file the suit where the defendant resides or at the place of defendant's business and that therefore, on the analogy of CPC the application was filed at Ahmedabad since the defendant employer has its place at Ahmedabad and head office at Ahmedabad and that therefore the application could not have been dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the application should have been entertained by the authority at Ahmedabad and there was no reason or justification to reject the application. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also examined the record. 10. At the outset it is necessary to clarify that the application has not been rejected on merits by the authorities, hence, it is open to the petitioner to file application at Veraval and get it adjudicated in the event the defendant employer has still not paid the amount due and payable towards gratuity. 10.1. Furthermore, the application is not rejected but it is simply not entertained by the authority before whom it was presented and that is for want of jurisdiction and with clarification that it can be filed before the authority having territorial jurisdiction. 10.2. Before proceeding further it is necessary to mention that as per the scheme/provisions of the act on occurrence of any event mentioned In Section 4 of the Act e.g. retirement/resignation (provided service for 5 years in an establishment empowering ten or more persons is completed) etc., gratuity becomes payable to the employee and if it is not paid within 30 days then application to the controlling authority can be made within 30 days from the date when the gratuity becomes payable. The amount payable is to be calculated in accordance with the provision under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The total number of years of service (i.e. the length of service) and therefore, date of joining and date of retirement and the last drawn salary/wage are the relevant factors/details necessary for determining the amount payable towards gratuity. 10.3. If the employer fails to calculate and pay the gratuity then the employee can make application u/s 7 to the controlling authority constituted under the Act. Section 3 of the Act confers power on the appropriate government to appoint officer as "Controlling Authority" (who is the adjudicating authority having the powers to adjudicate the disputes related to claims for gratuity) and the said Section 3 also authorizes the appropriate government to appoint different "Controlling Authorities" for "different areas." 10.4. The said Section 3, Section 4(1) and 4(2) and Section 7(1) to 7(3) reads thus: 3. Controlling authority - The appropriate Government, may, by notification, appoint any officer to be a controlling authority, who shall be responsible for the administration of this Act and different controlling authorities may be appointed for different areas. 4. Payment of Gratuity - (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years:- (a) on his superannuation. (b) on his retirement or resignation. (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall Invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. (2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of sic months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned: Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account: Provided further that in the case of [an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year] the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season. Explanation - In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days' wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen. Section 7. Determination of the amount of gratuity - (1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date It becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date It becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. (4)(a) If there is any dispute to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, the employer shall deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity. (b) Where there is a dispute with regard to any matter or matters specified in clause (a), the employer or employee or any other person raising the dispute may make an application to the controlling authority for deciding the dispute. (c) The controlling authority shall, after due inquiry and after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the matter or matters in dispute and if, as a result of such inquiry any amount is found to be payable to the employee, the controlling authority shall direct the employer to pay such amount or, as the case may be, such amount as reduced by the amount already deposited by the employer. (d) The controlling authority shall pay the amount deposited, including the excess amount, if any, deposited by the employer, to the person entitled thereto. (e) As soon as may be after a deposit is made under clause (a), the controlling authority shall pay the amount of the deposit:- (i) to the applicant where he is the employee. (ii) where the applicant is not the employee, to the nominee or, as the case may be, the guardian of such nominee or heir of the employee if the controlling authority is satisfied that there is no dispute as to the right of the applicant to receive the amount of gratuity. 10.5. Thus, as per the said provisions, the controlling authority constituted u/s 3 is the adjudicating authority and the Act authorises the controlling authority to adjudicate and determine disputes related to claims for gratuity and the appropriate government has the power to appoint-constitute different authorities for different areas. 10.6. 10.5. Thus, as per the said provisions, the controlling authority constituted u/s 3 is the adjudicating authority and the Act authorises the controlling authority to adjudicate and determine disputes related to claims for gratuity and the appropriate government has the power to appoint-constitute different authorities for different areas. 10.6. In present case, it is observed and clarified in the order/s impugned in present petition that the state government - being the "appropriate government" under the Act - has, in exercise of the power u/s 3 of the Act has constituted-appointed different controlling authorities for different areas In the State. 10.7. It has come on record that one officer has been appointed as controlling authority at Junagadh for Veraval area i.e. the place of petitioner's last posting and from where he retired and where his permanent residence is situate. 10.8. Hence when for different areas different con-trolling authorities are appointed by the appropriate government, then the specific area of operation and their respective "territorial" jurisdiction also must have been determined and prescribed. Actually the appellate authority has clarified in its order that the area of jurisdiction for each controlling authority have been prescribed and notified. Consequently, the officer appointed as and constituted as controlling authority for one area will not and cannot adjudicate and determine the claim-dispute pertaining to another "area" for which different officer Is already appointed and constituted as the controlling authority (e.g. In present case Veraval-Junagadh where the claimant-petitioner last worked and where he resides and has his permanent address-residence). 10.9. Furthermore, even in the application filed by the petitioner for claiming gratuity and also in the application/Form No. 1, page-10 and Form "N" (page-14) the petitioner has mentioned Veraval as the place where he worked and wherefrom he retired and also as the place of his permanent residence. 11. The legality and propriety of the two concurrent orders can be examined from another perspective also viz. petitioner's permanent residential address. 11.1. So as to get necessary clarification it was Inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is residing at Ahmedabad or Veraval. The details about his permanent residential address were also inquired. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not give clear reply though he continued to submit that Initially the petitioner's appointment was at Ahmedabad. 11.2. The details about his permanent residential address were also inquired. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not give clear reply though he continued to submit that Initially the petitioner's appointment was at Ahmedabad. 11.2. So far as the permanent residential address of the petitioner is concerned, from the memo of the petition i.e. from the affidavit portion on page-8. It clearly transpires that the permanent residential address of the petitioner is at Veraval. Likewise in the cause title of the petition also it is mentioned that the residential address of the petitioner is at Veraval. 11.3. Therefore, even otherwise it would be more convenient and economical for the petitioner to file the application at Veraval so that he may attend the office of the controlling authority. If the application Is adjudicated at Ahmedabad, then the petitioner, a poor and retired employee will have to travel to Ahmedabad from Veraval for attending the hearing for getting his oral evidence-deposition recorded. Thus, if the matter is considered from this perspective and In light of the aforesaid facts, the orders can not be classified as unjustified or arbitrary. 12. There is yet another aspect and perspective in light of which the propriety and justification of the Impugned orders - In addition to the legality of the orders - can be examined viz. last place of posting/work and "cause of action" or "cause for action." 12.1. In present case, It Is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from the service while his posting was fit Veraval and he was working at Veraval. 12.2. In light of the provisions under the Act, particularly Section 4(1) of the Act, it comes out clearly that gratuity becomes payable on occurrence of any event from amongst the events mentioned in Section 4(1) which Includes retirement/superannuation, resignation etc. 12.3. Thus, gratuity becomes payable on cessation of employment (subject to compliance of other requirements/conditions) for any of the reasons mentioned in Section 4(1). 12.4. Differently put the "cause of action" and "cause for action" (to claim gratuity) arises on cessation of employment and upon being relieved from service and consequently the "cause" can be said to have arisen at the place from where the employee retires/is relieved from service. Therefore also the application is required to be filed before the controlling authority exercising jurisdiction in respect of the area wherefrom the employer retires. 21.5. Therefore also the application is required to be filed before the controlling authority exercising jurisdiction in respect of the area wherefrom the employer retires. 21.5. It is also not in dispute that in his application in Form-N and in the application in Form-I as well, the petitioner mentioned that his last place of posting and work was at Veraval. 12.6. Thus, so far as present case is concerned, since the applicant's last posting was at Veraval and at the time of superannuation he was working at Veraval and he got superannuated-retired at Veraval in his case the cause of action and "cause for action" arose at Veraval. 12.7. Furthermore, the above mentioned forms (i.e. as prescribed by the statutory rules) prescribed for making application to the employer and the controlling authority also require the employee to mention the place of last posting i.e. the office/place where his last posting was and the place were he last worked and the post on which he last worked. 12.8. The said aspect emerging from the prescribed application forms, also is indicative of the fact that the place wherefrom the employee retires is considered a "relevant factor" for the authority to determine and exercise jurisdiction. 12.9. Hence, considering the case from the perspective of "cause of action" and the place at which it can be said to have arisen in light of the provisions of the Act. 12.10. Therefore also the two concurrent decisions of the controlling authority and the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be erroneous or arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 13. As mentioned earlier even from the perspective of the place of residence of the petitioner, the office of controlling authority at Veraval would be convenient place for the applicant to attend the hearing In case of need particularly for oral evidence. 13.1. If the application is to be entertained and decided at Ahmedabad then it would prove to be very difficult for the applicant to frequently attend the hearing at Ahmedabad and may prove to be cost-prohibitive also. 13.2. Therefore, also the order does not warrant any interference. Hence, considering from all possible perspective the order passed by the controlling authority did not appear to be arbitrary. 13.2. Therefore, also the order does not warrant any interference. Hence, considering from all possible perspective the order passed by the controlling authority did not appear to be arbitrary. It appears that by preferring appeal and then present petition, the petitioner has unnecessarily consumed time instead of preferring an application at the earliest before the controlling authority at Veraval and getting it adjudicated. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands disposed of.